With this move, Facebook is turning many of your before-private profile fields into now-public "Page" connections. Any most users don't realize by clicking that blue button they are making everything public.
Did you read the three sentences on the top of that dialog? The third one reads, "Remember, your Pages are public". There is a more detailed explanation linked off of the "Learn more" link.
[I work for Facebook, but my opinions are my own].
Yes, that sentence does seek to inform users that their new Page connections are public -- especially those you take the time to read the dialog.
However, in the last few days I've run across many Facebook users who chose to make these public connections when previously they had their interests and likes private. I suspect most of them clicked through the dialog without reading it or fully understanding the ramifications of their actions.
You could argue that the user's ignorance and lack of reading available explanation is their problem, but it just seems a little unethical (on the grounds of previously knowing average users will click through dialogs) overall.
I don't understand how it is unethical at all. It is very clearly mentioned, in less than two lines of text, with detailed explanations one click away. What do you suggest instead?
In my personal opinion, I argue that the effort to make before-private settings now-public with user confirmation is the "unethical" part, not necessarily the implementation. I will cede a point here: calling it unethical may be a little bit too strong. But I definitely do not agree with the decision, for the following reason:
Knowing that a design change will cause a certain percentage of the user base to expose their personal information (which retroactively they did not wish to make public) while providing little added benefit to the end user is what bothers me.
Facebook is known for its perseverance in the face of user complaints, which I can respect. I thoroughly agree that at times user complaints and petitions (such as those against the various site redesigns) are unfounded, as there is a clear greater good. I do not see the greater good of the new public-pages push, and thus, do not respect the effort to push user information into a more public space.
If you could point out benefits users receive by making more of their information public, perhaps I could be convinced.
IMO, the benefits are from having your interests represented in a structured format. For example, you can now go to Pandora, and Pandora knows what music you like [and what music your friends like]. You can start actually building up an identity and using it across the web. There are tons of possibilities for features useful to users that come from having a structured list of what you like and don't like. Hopefully you'll see Facebook make good on the promise to give you more useful things based on the structured information in the near future.
The privacy changes are a side effect of having these be connections instead of free text. Keep in mind the number of connections that an average user makes (all the Likes they attach to Pages, to Open Graph objects, friend connections) - would you have a Privacy control per connection? It's already not an easy task to keep the privacy controls so the average user can understand and use them correctly [and we can always improve this] -- just imagine the complexity we'd add to the system. What exists instead is the ability for you to control the visibility of all these connections on your own Profile. "Public" means that your association with these objects may appear elsewhere [for example, a friend may reveal that you're friends with them, or a Page may reveal you Like that Page.]. I think this is a decent balance between giving the user what they want primarily (to control whether visitors to their Profile see that they are connected to something), and managing overall complexity.
[Edit: this is my opinion, I perhaps don't know enough about the privacy decisions to represent them completely. ]
Any UI engineer worth his paycheck should know how users feel about dialog boxes that aren't manually triggered. They get in the way, users want to bypass them however possible, and they'll click wildly just to get to the other side of the fence.
It's not "unethical" in the strictest since of the word, but I'm sure you'll have a very hard time telling me it isn't an underhanded tactic just to make the user do what you want.
What would I suggest? I would suggest hiring UI engineers who actually perform A/B testing before rolling out another design iteration before users can even get used to them, and then I would apply those same principles of testing to things like this.
Secondly, I would give users better options what you're giving them right now. Letting FB do Link data automatically, or letting the user do it him/herself is a false choice if the user doesn't want to participate at all. The means lead to the same end, and the user is coerced into making a choice one way or another.
Thirdly: I would do a MUCH better job of designing these dialog boxes to inform users of what's about to happen. As it stands, users are simply going to think their data is simply getting reformatted, when that is not the case at all.
That's what I suggest, but honestly given the track record of Facebook actually listening to their user base, I honestly don't think any of what I said matters. Given that "what do you suggest" has been your retort on another comment very similar to mine.
Let me remind you, by the way-before you make an attempt to inform me otherwise about the 'opt-out' choice-, users are not left with much solace if they don't want their profiles linked to public places.
If you don’t want to connect to any Pages, the corresponding sections on your Profile will be empty. Connecting to Pages will now be the main way to express yourself on your profile, and you can always edit your profile to remove specific suggested Pages that you don't want to connect to.
This comes from your own FAQ on Facebook.com. What you're in essence saying, is that the only way users can tell their friends about where they've worked, where they've gone to school, what they are interested in, is to subject themselves to the public atmosphere that is Facebook Pages 2.0.
IMO, Facebook isn't a finished product. The product changes in ways that are hopefully useful to the majority of users over time. It isn't always possible [and it isn't simple, and it adds complexity, and bugs, and it doesn't make sense] to maintain every feature that once existed -- the product would stagnate if we tried to do that.
The latter part of what you said is absolutely right. You can't continue to support old features and expect to thrive.
BUT what it seems that Facebook is lacking is a clear sense of direction when it comes to providing a platform that is accessible yet robust, interactive yet intuitive.
Your conjecture that the product changes in ways that are useful to the majority is a conjecture I refuse to buy because if you were to actually give your user base a chance, give them a voice and poll them, I'll bet my salary for the year 80% of them (techies and non-techies alike) will agree that Facebook has degraded to the point of being almost useless.
It's an evolution, and we're figuring things out as we go. This isn't territory that anyone has ever explored in the past.
As for your bet, the obvious counterargument is that 400 million users still visit the site every month, and I haven't seen any signs that that graph is even slowing down. Isn't that a more convincing statement than a poll or a forum with very vocal techies?
Convincing is when you're able to build a platform and assimilate naturally evolving elements of what makes that platform great, and the community that exists on top of that platform to enhance the experience.
Interestingly enough: your prime competitor has done this exceptionally well.
Do you know who I'm talking about? Of course you do. I'm talking about Twitter. In fact, they've done it one hundred times better than your employer has.
It was an honest question, in the comment you responded to. You didn't actually include any suggestions, so I was curious.
All I can say in response to your answers is that Facebook engineers and designers are some of the smartest people I know.
I tend to think that if you're unsatisfied with what they're producing, (and assuming you're willing to accept that malice isn't the reason) then either
(a) the problems they're solving are really hard and you're underestimating these problems or
(b) you're much smarter than them - perhaps you can help us do a better job [drop me a line].
Mr Violet, listen. I don't doubt that you have some talented people, in fact I've seen it. Facebook has done things no Social Networking site before it has done, but that's how technology works. MySpace was the king of it's day, doing things Friendster didn't do and Facebook is doing things MySpace didn't do.
You don't have to tell me that the engineers and designers are smart and talented, however I need to make a rebuttal here.
(a) I have no idea what the problems Facebook are [trying] to solve. As far as I, as a user am concerned they haven't solved anything. They created problems when the design committee decided they will "test" a new iteration of how Facebook looks and operates every winter solstice. That is an issue for me because not only do I have to figure out where something I, and other users use on a daily basis, I now have to sit through another (n)weeks of users complaining about it because they don't have the technical fortitude to learn new technology.
That should be a wakeup call to Facebook. Not all users are made equal, not everyone can look at a UI and make an educated guess what elements to click in order to upload a new image. That is what prompted my comment that "any UI engineer worth his paycheck" should understand how vital it is not to assume users know everything.
Yet that is exactly what is crippling Facebook right now. By not assuming your users can do the things your development staff does, you've taken it too far and assumed they need to be guided by the hand and told what they want and what's best for them. The downvotes will come in two fold for me making this comment, but you're acting a lot like Apple is acting when it comes to the AppStore. Apple constantly gets frustrated blog posts from well meaning developers who have their applications rejected because it's not best for the user.
Let the user decide that.
Secondly.
(b) I dream for the day when technology plays as much a role role in developing social capital that money does, and I think it's great that Facebook came along and started doing things that really got people's heads to turn. The opportunity to be in the arena to participate in the endeavor to bring a technological approach to the development and longevity of social capital is an opportunity I would rarely turn down.
But if it's all the same, and no offense to you sir, I would never in my life work a day for Facebook.
No, Page connections are public. I don't think you can change that under Privacy settings -- you can not display them on your Profile if you so choose. The dialog took the conservative option of warning you that things were becoming public, rather than adding a potentially confusing "hide Pages" option on the dialog.
There's no Earthly reason to make those connections public except to expose personally-identifying information that the individual may not want to have exposed. This, to me, is a nightmare of Orwellian proportions.
I was actually really annoyed by Facebook's new linking of profile items, but not at all because of privacy issues. (I really don't care if anyone sees the things I put on Facebook).
I initially chose NOT to link any of my profile interests to their respective pages. I have no problem giving Facebook data for their open graph project; my fear was that I would soon be inundated with dozens of news feed items from all of my interests' Pages. So I unchecked all the items that had been on my profile for several years, thinking that they would still be displayed as simple text (as opposed to links).
Instead, they were all deleted! So I took some time to (partially) rebuild my list of interests as links, only to then of course witness the flood of news items posted by those pages. I have been 'hiding' them as they show up. Hiss.
I wasn't warned. I scanned the dialogue page to see if there was any information, but couldn't find anything. I definitely could have missed a text block if it were either at the very top or bottom of the page and of normal font-size. But I certainly didn't see anything like, 'WARNING! By not linking to these items they will be removed from your profile. Are you sure you want to continue?', which is something I usually experience before things are deleted.
I understand fully that most of my profile items aren't actually associated with pages, or may be pages that don't post. But even taking that into consideration, there were still likely a few dozen (popular shows and bands, for example that I am positive have a presence on Facebook) that likely would be posting to my feed. I estimate I only added back 1/4 of the interests I had before, and about 10 of those posted on my feed today. It's fine because I can just hide them and actually obtain the settings I want, but it was a bit of a process.
Nope, I didn't see that. I wonder if it was because I left a few items that I knew would not be publishing to my stream (such as 'city'). Perhaps that box only popped up if a user unchecks every single item in each field?
What this article doesn't really clarify is that the author kept picking "Ask me later" in the dialog for the suggestions. It doesn't really make sense for Facebook to just keep letting you "snooze" that transition [keeping all data in two formats, maintaining two Profile formats, more headaches] -- which is why, the fifth time or so you see the dialog, it wants you to make a decision.
So you're telling me that it is (prohibitively) difficult to maintain a couple of free-form text areas where users can list interests, past jobs, etc. for their FRIENDS to see without linking to public pages? I know this isn't beyond Facebook's engineering or infrastructure and it stinks of agenda, not evolution.
Do you guys list a series of illegal activities as public interests on Facebook or something? Google's lack of privacy boundaries are much more disconcerting than this -- "Orwellian" seems to imply one being watched, which Facebook is not doing; you are publishing it yourself, to the Internet. This is just an example of poor UI design.
I list gay marriage and other socially liberal causes. I'm sure that some socially conservative HR managers that look at my pages will not choose me for a contracting gig. Is it foolish? Perhaps, but simultaneously they were signals that I wished to send out for other reasons.
Similarly, people who include the tea party should not be discriminated against in employment. Yet people will do this subconsciously.
This is explained on your Profile settings page: "These settings only control the information people can see on your profile. This information, such as your Pages and list of friends, is still public, so it could appear elsewhere on the site and be accessed by applications you and your friends use."
AFAIK^^ interests on new profiles are set as "Friends Only" by defaults and that was one of the defaults on the previous privacy rollout for pre-existing users after the cry out.
All this does is change how the interests actually link (They used to be linked to a search field seeing who else had that text, Now they link to pre-formatted fan pages which still show who else like it but with descriptions from Wikipedia.)
Don't you love that you need a second FB account to check whether your privacy settings are actually in effect? It's indicative of how difficult it is to understand the privacy settings that are offered.
Part of the reason Facebook is able to get away with so much of this is that when you are logged into Facebook, it never occurs to you how much of your information is being shown to other people; it's like a crowd of people with funny stickynotes attached to their forehead, everybody sees and is entertained by what they can see on other people's foreheads but they can't easily tell what is on their own.
Much as I love complaining about Facebook, the fact that they accurately derived the pages to be linked to means they already have this information. In fact I'm not even sure why they bother to ask.
They are asking because auto opt-in drew the ire of legislators, now they have the "we asked!" defense. Of course as this and other (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_high_pressure...) articles point out, the opt-in is both unclear and a bit forceful.
Also FB has had backlash before over making things public so they are trying to nip that in the bud beforehand by allowing the vocal minority who understands/pays attention to this stuff to opt-out while the masses just click the "Accept All" button.
They were derived from the text you put on your Profile. Users were asked because it was the right thing to do, given that the algorithm would make some mistakes, and because converting the free text to Page connections meant that these would be hideable but public.
